HawkII Posted June 18 Posted June 18 (edited) ______________________________________________________________4D Edit: (as) the inside out of 3D Where are the fields in Physics? On the outside. Gravitational field. Electromagnetic field. There are no Knots in 4D, why? Quote In four or more dimensions (as it turns out) there is enough "space" to untie any knot, that is smoothly transform it into a circle. It's important to note that only 1D strings can't be knotted in 4D Isn't an inside out Knot the same as an untied Knot? Edited June 18 by HawkII
swansont Posted June 18 Posted June 18 ! Moderator Note Where is the speculation (that complies with the rules of this section)?
HawkII Posted June 18 Author Posted June 18 (edited) Quote 1. If you are presenting some new conjecture and insisting that it is correct, or are objecting to some mainstream theory, you need to back up your position and will be expected to do so. It's a far better approach to ask questions if it's a matter of not understanding how some scientific principle works. Once you insist your idea is right (or some other idea is wrong) the burden of proof is on you The Tesseract for example expresses its Volume outside Quote 3. In cases where math may not be required, you still need to be able to make predictions that distinguish your idea from existing theories The Klien bottle is a true 4D object which can only exist in 4D. It is both inside and out. 'Because the inside part and outside parts of the tube are connected together, the Klein bottle really has only one side. ' Where as a 3D Cube put into 4D turns itself inside out. A true 4D shape is already inside out. Quote 4. It's a good idea to explain what new ground you're covering if it's a new hypothesis, They say it will take a lot of imagination to solve 4D, I may have done just that. Edited June 18 by HawkII
Mordred Posted June 19 Posted June 19 You don't solve anything involving geometry unless your applying the mathematics. Without math everything is simply wildly imaginative assertions.
HawkII Posted June 19 Author Posted June 19 (edited) 4th dimension (Inside out Dimension) '4D objects cast 3D shadows when observed' Well naturally if observed, an inside out object casts a 3D shadow. 'Quantum tunneling, Electron gains more energy, couples with an Electrons in a higher energy orbit, then emitts a Photon as it goes back down to its original orbit.' Now; If you think of this Electron as expressing its Volume outwardly, the more energy it has, the more Volume it has, which means it's technically INSIDE the Electon in the higher orbit. The Photon emitted is equivalent to it coming OUT from the Electron in the higher orbit. 9 hours ago, Mordred said: You don't solve anything involving geometry unless your applying the mathematics. Without math everything is simply wildly imaginative assertions. Quote 3. In cases where math may not be required, you still need to be able to make predictions that distinguish your idea from existing theories Eureka! I was thinking on it then out of nowhere I came up with something that can be tested. Right now as I type this I do not know the answer, I have yet to even look into it. Do Quantumly entangled particles emit virtual Photons after they become unentangled? I predict that they do. I predict this as I now believe that they are VIRTUALLY INSIDE eachother. Then they VIRTUALLY come OUT from eachother. Edited June 19 by HawkII
swansont Posted June 19 Posted June 19 1 hour ago, HawkII said: 4th dimension (Inside out Dimension) '4D objects cast 3D shadows when observed' Well naturally if observed, an inside out object casts a 3D shadow. 'Quantum tunneling, Electron gains more energy, couples with an Electrons in a higher energy orbit, then emitts a Photon as it goes back down to its original orbit.' You put these statements in quotation marks. What is the source? Quantum tunneling is not electron excitation
Mordred Posted June 19 Posted June 19 (edited) That section you quoted stated your idea needs to make predictions in your examples requires mathematics in order to make predictions for testability. It's not a reason to avoid the mathematics. Nice try If you take a geometric object described by 3 dimensions turning it inside out will still only be 3 dimensional. (Dimension refers to effective degrees of freedom or under math an independent variable) A dimension has specific requirements to meet. That qualification is described and tested via mathematics and not random assertions. Edited June 19 by Mordred
HawkII Posted June 20 Author Posted June 20 (edited) The Tesseract Net only becomes a Tesseract once it is turned inside out. Edit: I found this then thought I'd share it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercubane Edited June 20 by HawkII
swansont Posted June 20 Posted June 20 You haven’t defined what you mean by “turned inside out” You haven’t addressed issues others have raised.
Mordred Posted June 20 Posted June 20 The tesseract does nothing with regards to the claims you made above. We are all aware of the tesserect. There is literally nothing new about it.
HawkII Posted July 31 Author Posted July 31 (edited) On 6/20/2024 at 10:44 PM, swansont said: You haven’t defined what you mean by “turned inside out” You haven’t addressed issues others have raised. I have found the word, Folding. On 6/21/2024 at 12:04 AM, Mordred said: The tesseract does nothing with regards to the claims you made above. We are all aware of the tesserect. There is literally nothing new about it. The Tesseract is a folded inside out 3D Omnidirectional Cross shape. Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus) On 6/19/2024 at 12:28 PM, swansont said: You put these statements in quotation marks. What is the source? Quantum tunneling is not electron excitation https://thesciencespace.quora.com/The-shadow-of-3D-object-is-2D-then-is-the-shadow-of-4D-object-is-3D-Why-or-why-not Ok Edited July 31 by HawkII
Mordred Posted July 31 Posted July 31 (edited) Your really are not grasping the time component. It is not a spatial dimension. We use an interval to measure the rate of signals between observer and emitter via (ct) which gives dimensionality equivalence to length but time itself has no spatial dimension. So modelling time using a tesseract or any other 3d object with an secondary object that can shift is not the same thing as time. Yes you can use 4 dimensions to describe the tesseract but it's simply 2 3d objects with a degree of movement of the secondary object that is independent of the main 3d object. That has nothing to do with time which is a property describing rate of change. Edited July 31 by Mordred
Phi for All Posted July 31 Posted July 31 16 minutes ago, HawkII said: The Tesseract is a folded inside out 3D Omnidirectional Cross shape. It's only a "cross" if you glue that extra cube on the bottom and get Jesus involved.
swansont Posted July 31 Posted July 31 50 minutes ago, HawkII said: https://thesciencespace.quora.com/The-shadow-of-3D-object-is-2D-then-is-the-shadow-of-4D-object-is-3D-Why-or-why-not Ok So, nothing authoritative. Just some guy on a different discussion board, being partly wrong. And nothing for the second quote.
HawkII Posted July 31 Author Posted July 31 1 hour ago, Mordred said: Your really are not grasping the time component. It is not a spatial dimension. We use an interval to measure the rate of signals between observer and emitter via (ct) which gives dimensionality equivalence to length but time itself has no spatial dimension. So modelling time using a tesseract or any other 3d object with an secondary object that can shift is not the same thing as time. Yes you can use 4 dimensions to describe the tesseract but it's simply 2 3d objects with a degree of movement of the secondary object that is independent of the main 3d object. That has nothing to do with time which is a property describing rate of change. Mr Mr Mr. I appreciate that you are referring to Time. However; I Am only concerned with the Spatial Dimension. 1 hour ago, swansont said: So, nothing authoritative. Just some guy on a different discussion board, being partly wrong. And nothing for the second quote. The second quote is me agreeing with you. 1 hour ago, Phi for All said: It's only a "cross" if you glue that extra cube on the bottom and get Jesus involved. Salvador Dalí is keeping this Thread highbrow.
Mordred Posted July 31 Posted July 31 (edited) 22 minutes ago, HawkII said: Mr Mr Mr. I appreciate that you are referring to Time. However; I Am only concerned with the Spatial Dimension. \[ ct,x,y,z\] Done there is your 4 spatial components using interval for time. Is there some way you can think of to make that statement more intuitive ? Normalize the units \[c=\hbar=g=k=1\] and the majority of your equations are far easier to work with. Edited July 31 by Mordred
HawkII Posted July 31 Author Posted July 31 46 minutes ago, Mordred said: ct,x,y,z Done there is your 4 spatial components using interval for time. Is there some way you can think of to make that statement more intuitive ? Normalize the units c=ℏ=g=k=1 and the majority of your equations are far easier to work with. Mr Mr Mr. Take a leaf out of Salvador Dalí's Book. Leave Time at the decontamination shower. All I'm interested in, is w, x, y, z. Interestingly enough, I watched a Netflix documentary about Oragami, there was a quote on there that I liked. 'Each fold is a new memory' -2
Mordred Posted July 31 Posted July 31 All I'm interested is something with actual physics practicality.
Mordred Posted August 1 Posted August 1 1 hour ago, joigus said: Another interesting topological concept is that of closure. That would certainly establish the finite space constraints
HawkII Posted August 3 Author Posted August 3 Oh my goshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh It's Gravity isn't it!!!!!!!!!!! Space-time is cubical. Gravity is outside our dimension which then folds Space-Time insideout.
Recommended Posts